Tue Mar 10 21:18:49 CDT 2009
Well, I guess I definitely disagree with this: "As far as JP's questions
re: disclosure, I think that reciprocity handles it. If a team you
disclose to pretends that an advantage is new when it isnt, you should
do this in the future when you debate them. Same with plans. Same with
"team affs". On down the line."
I'd rather teams just disclose what they'd expect in the same situation.
Forget "reciprocity," just give what you would want on the other side.
I don't expect our squad to execute "reciprocal justice." Keeping score
is a waste of time & energy.
"Treat others..." works better than "eye for an eye..."
That doesn't mean we won't ever "reciprocate" only that I think Debate
is a better game than Hockey.
Jason Russell wrote:
> I guess I dont see this as a big deal bc the conflict doesn't bother
> me that much, and I recognize that this is just me. If you dont want
> to disclose something, don't disclose it. If you don't ever want to
> disclose something, never disclose. If you hate MSU and don't want to
> disclose to just them, do that. I debated (as did most coaches) when
> disclosure wasn't a norm and when disclosure norms were created. It
> is, frankly, possible to do so and really not that big of a deal. In
> my experience, disclosure simplifies finding information on what teams
> have run previously, and that is helpful, but not necessary, to
> debating them. Most people find this system useful and therefor abide
> by it, which is fine. But if someone doesn't want to disclose to you
> or violates your expectations for disclosure, your options for dealing
> with this are largely individual. And, I think that's fine too. I
> loathe pre-round CX. When I see my debaters engaging in it, I
> discourage it, whether they've initiated it or their opponents have.
> Overall, I don't like the idea of coaches talking to other teams'
> debaters prior to debates at all. I think it is almost always bullying
> and exceeds the reasonable expectations of what people should know
> prior to a debate. In sum, I think that disclosure should not be
> codified because I dont think that it ought to be an expectation but a
> courtesy that should be responded to with reciprocity. That doesn't
> make it vigilante justice because I dont think it is unjust to fail to
> tell someone something that they dont need to know if the first place.
> This is something we like to have, not something we have a right to
> As far as JP's questions re: disclosure, I think that reciprocity
> handles it. If a team you disclose to pretends that an advantage is
> new when it isnt, you should do this in the future when you debate
> them. Same with plans. Same with "team affs". On down the line.
> The da to rules is that like the national football league's rules on
> evidence presentation or citation reading, they are difficult to
> verify and contentious to prosecute. You simply pass the buck down the
> line to judges who then become the targets of conflict for enforcing
> less-then-clear-cut rules. I've been involved in adjudicating two
> different, high-impact evidence challenges over the years and having
> rules on these issues hasn't made them less contentious and
> conflict-laden when confronted. It simply involves more individuals.
> Teams should handle this one-on-one for that reason.
> eDebate mailing list
> eDebate at www.ndtceda.com
More information about the Mailman